I've heard this expression tossed around alot lately. Terrorists hate Israel yet their airport never gets bombed and their planes don't get hijacked. This is done by a type of profiling that is part racial and so forth and also part psychological.

From what I understand they interview EVERY person who gets on a plane. I don't know exactly what they ask them but I'm wondering if they did that here ..would it even be possible?

America has alot of airports and millions of people flying. Could they manage to interview every single person on every flight? forever?

I've heard this expression tossed around alot lately. Terrorists hate Israel yet their airport never gets bombed and their planes don't get hijacked. This is done by a type of profiling that is part racial and so forth and also part psychological.

From what I understand they interview EVERY person who gets on a plane. I don't know exactly what they ask them but I'm wondering if they did that here ..would it even be possible?

America has alot of airports and millions of people flying. Could they manage to interview every single person on every flight? forever?

That seems like ALOT of interviews.

Yeah, that's part of it. I gather you also don't know the exact place you'll be boarding and the exact plane until moments before you get on.

I've heard this expression tossed around alot lately. Terrorists hate Israel yet their airport never gets bombed and their planes don't get hijacked. This is done by a type of profiling that is part racial and so forth and also part psychological.

From what I understand they interview EVERY person who gets on a plane. I don't know exactly what they ask them but I'm wondering if they did that here ..would it even be possible?

America has alot of airports and millions of people flying. Could they manage to interview every single person on every flight? forever?

Yeah, that's part of it. I gather you also don't know the exact place you'll be boarding and the exact plane until moments before you get on.

Right on.

That would be a definite deterrent because it would cause some measure of confusion and antagonism to a terrorist who has to be "on this plane" "at that time" so he could do his thing. Not being able to do so would cause some serious grief for said terrorist.

And I would think that a character that's nervous to that degree would definitely show it in an interview as the people conducting it are trained to find such an individual.

Oh I understand the logic behind it and you can't argue with the results they've gotten, I just wonder how that system could be applied here.

Also, on another level, we aren't Israel. The idea that we are importing their policies implies their problems are ours in a way that is at odds with many peoples understanding of what our country is, namely a republic not an empire.

Oh I understand the logic behind it and you can't argue with the results they've gotten, I just wonder how that system could be applied here.

Also, on another level, we aren't Israel. The idea that we are importing their policies implies their problems are ours in a way that is at odds with many peoples understanding of what our country is, namely a republic not an empire.

Good point. But as far as the "Republic, not an empire" remark, I think it fits in to the current feelings about "liberty over security." At one time the two have to be combined, but the ACLU and other groups are right there saying "NO". This accomplishes nothing.

And since this attitude won't likely go away any time soon, I hardly see any chances to come up with a better way to handle the situation because everyone is concerned about losing something.

This isn't to say that I agree with the TSA body scans, or the pat searches, but then again, if it weren't for people like Richard Reid and the Underwear bomber, it wouldn't have come to this.

Other countries that aren't on the muslims s**t list don't have to do any of this.

Eventually we are going to have to come to grips with the fact that we are not wanted in the middle east and they will be over here doing stuff like 9/11 as long as we are over there.

Theres no magic security pill that is going to allow us to continue with the status quo as far as our foreign policy is concerned.

No, some other countries don't have to do this, but places like Denmark, France and Holland were already candidates for a call to Jihad over their respective doings.

What p*sses me is that Muslims seem to think their religion is some sort of snow-white do-good theology that should be beyond reproach or ridicule.

It's really dumb. because if you belong to any particular religion, (From Christianity and on) expect to have critics and antagonists of that religion. Get used to it. Why do Muslims have to be different?

They'll never be safe from attack, no matter what we do. We already have plenty of security. Would shoveling even more inconvenience on travelers - not knowing what gate or plane they're going to until the last minute, pre-flight interrogations - really help that much?

akira- well this is along the lines of what I'm thinking to. People are talking about these techniques as if they are like the thing that is going to fortify us against attacks. I think

1. They work fine in Israel but wil be an awful lot of work if we even get it together to attempt them here and

2. Still leaves us vulnerable in 10 million other areas.

Israel has a massive massive security apparatus, they have a big brother country , us, helping them pay for it, they have a very homogenous population, I mean they are mostly jewish except for the arab minority.

I'm not making any kind of qualitative statement on them, just that their situation is in many ways more manageable security wise than ours which sounds ridiculous considering the history oft hat region.

They'll never be safe from attack, no matter what we do. We already have plenty of security. Would shoveling even more inconvenience on travelers - not knowing what gate or plane they're going to until the last minute, pre-flight interrogations - really help that much?

Two studies by a group of Cornell University researchers have found that strict airport security has the unintended consequence of increasing road fatalities, as would-be air travelers decide to drive and are exposed to the far greater risk of dying in a car accident.

In 2005, the researchers looked at the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and found that the change in passenger travel modes lead to 242 added driving deaths per month. In all, they estimated that about 1,200 driving deaths could be attributed to the short-term effects of the attacks. The study attributes the change in traveler behavior to two factors: fear of terrorist attacks and the wish to avoid the inconvenience of strict security measures; no attempt is made to estimate separately the influence of each of these two factors.

In 2007, the researchers studied specifically the effects of a change to security practices instituted by the TSA in late 2002. They concluded that this change reduced the number of air travelers by 6%, and estimated that consequently, 129 more people died in car accidents in the fourth quarter of 2002. Extrapolating this rate of fatalities, New York Times contributor Nate Silver remarked that this is equivalent to "four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.".

The 2007 study also noted that strict airport security hurts the airline industry; it was estimated that the 6% reduction in the number of passengers in the fourth quarter of 2002 cost the industry $1.1 billion in lost business.

They'll never be safe from attack, no matter what we do. We already have plenty of security. Would shoveling even more inconvenience on travelers - not knowing what gate or plane they're going to until the last minute, pre-flight interrogations - really help that much?

Two studies by a group of Cornell University researchers have found that strict airport security has the unintended consequence of increasing road fatalities, as would-be air travelers decide to drive and are exposed to the far greater risk of dying in a car accident.

In 2005, the researchers looked at the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and found that the change in passenger travel modes lead to 242 added driving deaths per month. In all, they estimated that about 1,200 driving deaths could be attributed to the short-term effects of the attacks. The study attributes the change in traveler behavior to two factors: fear of terrorist attacks and the wish to avoid the inconvenience of strict security measures; no attempt is made to estimate separately the influence of each of these two factors.

In 2007, the researchers studied specifically the effects of a change to security practices instituted by the TSA in late 2002. They concluded that this change reduced the number of air travelers by 6%, and estimated that consequently, 129 more people died in car accidents in the fourth quarter of 2002. Extrapolating this rate of fatalities, New York Times contributor Nate Silver remarked that this is equivalent to "four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.".

The 2007 study also noted that strict airport security hurts the airline industry; it was estimated that the 6% reduction in the number of passengers in the fourth quarter of 2002 cost the industry $1.1 billion in lost business.

Hmmm...interesting article. It seems that over time, (according to statistics) that the reduction of air travel, and the resulting amount of deaths by auto as a result pretty much makes it close to a case of 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

No doubt that driving is a dangerous thing all the way around, and that the psychological effect of 9\11 seems to have made it moreso with the amount of people driving, not flying. It's always something.